Luke Gadzic vs Canucks trolls

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I'm not saying that Canucks fans as a whole are good but if you are a broadcaster why would you lower yourself to their level. There is no way that you win a battle where you both look bad. The difference is that a random fan on any platform has a measure of anonymity, Gadzic doesn't have that at all.

This could be the end of his broadcasting career as it comes off as a bitter rant against a team that he will have to cover in the future. On top of that he just isn't very good at his job, he isn't funny, he isn't particularly insightful, he is just there as a warm body who was the worst player on the worst team in the best league.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Major Major

It's crazy how bad the analysis on snet is compared to TNT.

They don't really seem to care about the finer points of the game.

Now let's send it over to Elliott for his crowd confidence analysis. dumb

Canada deserves better than Sportsnet.

The contrast between the two is staggering. Not sure how it got this bad.

I never thought it would be the American coverage where I actually learned something from the discussion. They also have much better hockey personalities who actually provide insight. Not just incessant drum beating for their favorite team.

[Blaster86]

Bye Luke. You were a bad player with a soft mental game unfit for a national media position.

Originally Posted by ReinhartonD

Doubt he does more radio bits for Vancouver any time soon.

Probably not just Vancouver.

[Wastedyouth]

When the Canucks or Flames have some success they will see that success talked about on hockey night in Canada.

I for one think neither team deserves a single accolade for their failures in the last decade +.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

When the Canucks or Flames have some success they will see that success talked about on hockey night in Canada.

I for one think neither team deserves a single accolade for their failures in the last decade +.

Sure. Not sure what that has to do with a guy taking the bait from twitter trolls and saying things that endanger his livelihood as a broadcaster and commentator.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

When the Canucks or Flames have some success they will see that success talked about on hockey night in Canada.

I for one think neither team deserves a single accolade for their failures in the last decade +.

Maybe through gritted teeth.

Absolutely no one on the panel will relish discussing a successful Flames or Canucks team like they do with the stink.

But maybe that's a good thing. It will be more analytical and removed from emotion as it should be, rather than this ####show we're seeing now with connor outfit analysis and personalities popping off with embarrassing "we" statements

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Maybe through gritted teeth.

Absolutely no one on the panel will relish discussing a successful Flames or Canucks team like they do with the stink.

But maybe that's a good thing. It will be more analytical and removed from emotion as it should be, rather than this ####show we're seeing now with connor outfit analysis and personalities popping off with embarrassing "we" statements

Problem is these guys are commentators they're not journalists so the expectation for them to be impartial is out of whack.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Problem is these guys are commentators they're not journalists so the expectation for them to be in partial is out of whack.

They're allowed to be partial. They just can't say dumb things.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Sure. Not sure what that has to do with a guy taking the bait from twitter trolls and saying things that endanger his livelihood as a broadcaster and commentator.

I guess it just don't see why it should endanger anything. I don't think anywhere advertised or disclaimed on the show says that any of the guys are impartial. If anything you should be removed just because he kind of sucks at commentating. Not because he's biased.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

I guess it just don't see why it should endanger anything. I don't think anywhere advertised or disclaimed on the show says that any of the guys are impartial. If anything you should be removed just because he kind of sucks at commentating. Not because he's biased.

You can't be on a national broadcast and be inflammatory to one of the single biggest markets. It won't fly.

No one cared that Don Cherry loved his Bruins and Leafs. No one is calling for Bieksa's head for wearing his Canucks socks. But you can't attack a fan base of the third biggest city in Canada while representing a National Canadian network.

[Toonage]

The funny thing is, we all (and I genuinely feel like it was everyone) wondered aloud how that guy got on Sportsnet in the first place.

[Inferno]

It's not just about talking about a team's success either. It's the cheerleading.

It was painfully obvious when they played the Canucks. It's two Canadian teams so there should be no national bias. When they were winning it was constant gushing. When they were losing it wasn't what the Canucks were doing right. It was what the Oilers had to do to come back. When they did say something good about the Canucks it was short and then right back to talking about the Oilers.

[united]

Originally Posted by rohara66

He's not very good. How the heck did he even get on the panel?

McDavid’s former roommate. Not green text.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

You can't be on a national broadcast and be inflammatory to one of the single biggest markets. It won't fly.

No one cared that Don Cherry loved his Bruins and Leafs. No one is calling for Bieksa's head for wearing his Canucks socks. But you can't attack a fan base of the third biggest city in Canada while representing a National Canadian network.

Meh. I think you as a Canucks fan are taking it harder than someone from the outside. People on social sending him death threats, etc.

Good on him for firing back. The expectation that he is to show decorum when he is being treated in that manner is laughable.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Inferno

It's not just about talking about a team's success either. It's the cheerleading.

It was painfully obvious when they played the Canucks. It's two Canadian teams so there should be no national bias. When they were winning it was constant gushing. When they were losing it wasn't what the Canucks were doing right. It was what the Oilers had to do to come back. When they did say something good about the Canucks it was short and then right back to talking about the Oilers.

I don't mind biases because that's just how things work. Bieksa has an obvious bias towards the Canucks. The difference being though that Bieksa is better at his job and he didn't go on a podcast and talk #### about the other team and their fans. The we dusted them comments and how Canucks Twitter is trash really isolates a massive market.

I just don't see a way that this works out well for him as it isn't cheering for a team it is saying something bad about another team and their fans. I can't recall the last time I heard a national sports personality say something like this.

I don't know if apologizing or keeping his mouth shut would be a better option but I think that his job is in legitimate question now.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Calling the team a joke is where he went too far.
Have some respect for the players who battled all year, won their division and lost fair and square.
As a former player who could barely make it, to be calling members of his hockey fraternity a joke is absurd. What would he say to a Canuck face to face after that?

Calling out twitter idiots is fine, but complete disrespect to the players, coaches & staff of a Canadian team as a Canadian broadcaster, you gotta go loser!
Should be fired for this.

[BigT112]

Originally Posted by Toonage

The funny thing is, we all (and I genuinely feel like it was everyone) wondered aloud how that guy got on Sportsnet in the first place.

Pretty obvious isn't it? He's cheap. Rogers can't be bothered to spend money on actual talent.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Inferno

It's not just about talking about a team's success either. It's the cheerleading.

It was painfully obvious when they played the Canucks. It's two Canadian teams so there should be no national bias. When they were winning it was constant gushing. When they were losing it wasn't what the Canucks were doing right. It was what the Oilers had to do to come back. When they did say something good about the Canucks it was short and then right back to talking about the Oilers.

Bingo. It was an Oilers perspective no matter what transpired. Either gushing or concern.

Pretty jarring in a canadian head to head.

Is there a "2 down, 2 to go" commercial if the Canucks advance? Because I've never seen that for a specific team that went deep.. including Canadian ones.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Ferarri

I’m glad the mute button was created for sportsnet intermissions.

This is why I refuse to watch them live.

Hit the Siri button and "Skip 18 minutes" is a thing of beauty.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Toonage

The funny thing is, we all (and I genuinely feel like it was everyone) wondered aloud how that guy got on Sportsnet in the first place.

Yeah a strange hire, he brings nothing to the table. Does he even have his high school diploma?